William M. LeMay

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by Toronto City Council denying variances to the City's sign by-law for an electronic billboard.

The applicant argued that the City Council and the Community Council breached procedural fairness and that the local councillor's participation raised a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court held that while the decision was administrative and attracted a duty of fairness, the duty was at the lower end of the spectrum.

The court found that the applicant was afforded adequate procedural fairness and that the local councillor's actions did not constitute a disqualifying bias given his representative role.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant successfully brought a motion to discharge a writ of execution registered against the matrimonial home by the respondent's former solicitor for unpaid legal fees.

The applicant then sought full indemnity costs for the motion.

The court awarded costs of $8,667.79 on a full indemnity basis, finding that the applicant had made a reasonable offer to settle that exceeded the third party's recovery, and that the third party had taken unreasonable positions in opposing the motion.

The self-represented applicant sought an assessment of his former lawyers' accounts under the Solicitors Act.

The application was brought several months after the last account was rendered and after many accounts had been paid.

The court found no 'special circumstances' to justify the delay, noting that the applicant's desire not to alienate his lawyers while they were still working for him was insufficient.

The application was dismissed on the condition that the respondent law firm not seek to collect the remaining unpaid fees.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner's order requiring the disclosure of Change Notices and edited Detailed Feasibility Notices related to a government contract.

The applicant argued the records contained confidential commercial information and their disclosure would cause competitive harm.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Commissioner reasonably concluded that the Change Notices were negotiated rather than 'supplied' by the applicant, and that the applicant failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence that disclosure of the edited Detailed Feasibility Notices would result in a reasonable expectation of probable harm.

The plaintiff brought a motion to add their own insurer as a defendant and to extend the time for serving the statement of claim on the defendant vehicle owner, along with a request for substituted service.

The court found the plaintiff's counsel had been highly dilatory in pursuing the claim.

The court allowed the addition of the insurer as a defendant, noting a triable issue regarding discoverability, but preserved the insurer's right to plead a limitation defence.

However, the court dismissed the motions to extend time for service and for substituted service against the vehicle owner, finding the plaintiff failed to provide evidence rebutting the presumption of prejudice arising from the expired limitation period and failed to make sufficient efforts at personal service.

The court sentenced the offender after convictions arising from prolonged sexual abuse of a child by a stepfather in a position of trust.

Applying the Kienapple principle, the court held the sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching counts flowed from the same delict, matter or cause, and entered a conviction only on sexual interference because it more precisely captured the child-specific nature of the offence.

The court treated the victim's young age, the prolonged duration of abuse, the abuse of trust, anal intercourse, and the impact on the victim as major aggravating factors, while recognizing the offender's lack of prior record and positive community background as mitigating.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence under ss. 718 and 718.01 of the Criminal Code, the court imposed an eight-year penitentiary sentence together with DNA, SOIRA, firearms prohibition, and non-communication orders.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a costs decision, which was previously denied.

The court then addressed the costs of the leave application.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs, arguing the matter was complex, unnecessarily lengthened by the applicant, and entirely successful.

The court agreed, noting the applicant's late filings, lack of merit, incomplete materials, and allegations of bias.

The applicant was ordered to pay $17,253.00 in full indemnity costs.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a costs decision, which was previously denied.

The court then received written submissions regarding the costs of the leave to appeal application.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs, arguing the matter was complex, unnecessarily lengthened by the applicant, and entirely successful.

The court agreed, noting the applicant's late filings, lack of merit, incomplete materials, and allegations of bias.

The court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent full indemnity costs in the amount of $17,253.00.

Following a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff sought damages for various physical and psychological injuries.

A jury awarded the plaintiff $10,000 in general damages and dismissed her other claims.

The defendants subsequently brought a threshold motion under section 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court held that the jury's verdict should be strongly considered when deciding a threshold motion.

Finding that the plaintiff's current conditions were not caused by the accident and agreeing with the jury's implicit finding of only minor and transitory injuries, the court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the action.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a costs order of $36,912.82 arising from four motions in a contentious divorce proceeding.

The court found that the applicant failed to comply with the procedural rules for leave applications, including failing to file transcripts and the underlying reasons for the decision.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to meet the strict test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as there were no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's costs award.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim for damages related to basement flooding.

He argued the trial judge erred by requiring an expert report to be served prior to trial, adjourning the trial for that purpose, and ultimately rejecting his expert witness.

The Divisional Court dismissed these grounds, finding the trial judge properly exercised his gatekeeper function over expert evidence.

However, the appeal was allowed in part regarding costs; the court applied the Strasser principle to find that the Small Claims Court rule permitting the doubling of costs does not apply when a plaintiff's action is entirely dismissed.

The parties brought competing interim family law motions following separation.

One spouse sought partition and sale of the matrimonial home despite the property being registered solely in the other spouse’s name, while the responding spouse sought to impute higher income to the payor for child and spousal support.

The court held that the applicant had not established any ownership interest sufficient to invoke the Partition Act or otherwise justify ordering an immediate sale of the home, particularly where a constructive trust claim had not yet been proven.

The court declined most of the alleged income adjustments but imputed income reflecting employment salary, consulting fees paid through a corporation, and a portion of employment benefits.

Interim child support, spousal support, and retroactive support were ordered based on the imputed income.

Following a prior trial decision determining support obligations, the court invited the parties to make limited submissions addressing potential calculation errors in the support calculations.

The applicant instead filed an affidavit containing new documentation and income calculations that had not been part of the trial record.

The court held that the submissions process was restricted to identifying mathematical errors and did not permit the introduction of new evidence.

As the applicant had previously been given opportunities to present documentation during the trial, the court refused to consider the new materials.

The original support calculations therefore remained unchanged.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual touching of his 14-year-old niece relating to two separate incidents.

The first incident allegedly occurred in a hotel room in Sault Ste.

Marie, and the second in a laundry room in Brampton.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility.

The court found the accused not guilty of the hotel room incident due to reasonable doubt arising from unclear evidence.

However, the court found the accused guilty of the laundry room incident, rejecting his evidence and accepting the complainant's testimony beyond a reasonable doubt.

The respondent father brought a motion to dismiss the applicant mother's family law application in Ontario, arguing that a similar proceeding was already underway in British Columbia.

The parties had lived in British Columbia before separating, after which the mother moved to Ontario with their child.

The court found that while it had jurisdiction over custody under the Children's Law Reform Act, it should decline to exercise it based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The property claims were dismissed under the Family Law Act, and the custody and support claims were stayed pending the outcome of the British Columbia proceeding.

Following divorce, the parties litigated corollary relief including custody, access, child support, spousal support, and equalization.

The court found the parties had significant credibility issues and incomplete financial disclosure.

Sole custody of the children was granted to the respondent, but the applicant was granted a graduated return to unsupervised access based on evidence from supervised access reports and the principle of maximizing contact under the Divorce Act.

Income was imputed to the applicant based on business bank deposits due to inadequate disclosure, resulting in retroactive and ongoing child support.

Claims for spousal support and equalization were largely denied, with only limited transitional spousal support recognized.

The plaintiff brought an action arising from a land banking investment scheme that resulted in losses exceeding $250,000.

The defendants had been noted in default, and the matter proceeded as an undefended trial to determine liability and damages.

The court held that the pleaded facts established fraudulent misrepresentation, as the defendants knowingly promoted investments in land unlikely to receive development approval while promising substantial returns.

Judgment was granted jointly and severally against two individual defendants for the full value of the investments, and punitive damages were awarded against one defendant due to egregious conduct exploiting the plaintiff’s vulnerability and disability.

Claims for aggravated damages were dismissed for lack of evidence that psychological benefits were within the parties’ contemplation.

Following earlier reasons granting partial default judgment in a commercial dispute, the plaintiffs made further submissions seeking a declaration that the defendants owed them a fiduciary duty and requesting reconsideration of punitive damages.

The court reviewed the legal framework governing fiduciary relationships, emphasizing that fiduciary duties arise from specific relationships involving discretion, unilateral power, and vulnerability, and generally require a voluntary assumption of loyalty obligations.

The court held that the parties were arm’s‑length commercial actors engaged in a business relationship for mutual profit, and that the equitable trust remedies previously recognized were imposed after the fact to prevent unjust enrichment rather than to establish fiduciary obligations.

As a result, the court declined to declare the existence of a fiduciary duty and refused to revisit the earlier determination on punitive damages.

Following a three‑day family law trial concerning retroactive support and related issues, the court addressed the issue of costs under the Family Law Rules.

The applicant argued that each party should bear their own costs or that the respondent should pay her costs, while the respondent sought costs on the basis that he was substantially more successful and had taken more reasonable positions.

The court considered the parties’ conduct, the complexity and importance of the issues, the reasonableness of settlement offers, and the respondent’s greater success at trial.

Although the court found the applicant had acted in bad faith by delaying her claims for more than ten years, it declined to award full indemnity costs because the respondent was not completely successful.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded in favour of the respondent.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving a child over a prolonged period beginning when the complainant was approximately five years old and continuing into adolescence.

The Crown’s case relied primarily on the complainant’s testimony describing repeated sexual acts occurring in the family home and later in the accused’s apartment.

The accused denied the allegations and called several witnesses to challenge the plausibility of the events and his opportunity to commit the offences.

Applying the framework in R. v. W.(D.), the court rejected the accused’s evidence as inconsistent and implausible, found the complainant credible despite minor inconsistencies, and concluded the evidence established the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.